A new study says our children are chowing down on lead and other contaminants in baby food and formula. But there’s something fishy about said study. For one thing, it comes from a group arguing for “transparency” in labeling... but keeps all their own data hidden.

The story: Lead and other toxic substances would be a real problem if they were common in baby food. That’s not a farfetched idea, either—for example, California has found lead in candy that is sold in grocery stores. So this has the potential to be an important and perhaps even terrifying study. The study was done by the Clean Label Project, a nonprofit that says they “[use] data and science to reveal the true contents of America’s best selling consumer products.”

Advertisement

The problem is, I don’t know what they studied or how. Neither can you.

I eagerly clicked their “methodology” page. It contains no methodology. I was expecting something like what the EWG does for their Dirty Dozen list of pesticide-contaminated foods, wherein they run actual data through actual analyses. I disagree with the importance of EWG’s results and am concerned with their conflicts of interest, but at least they have a methodology that they explain. The Clean Label Project, on the other hand, explains nothing. They test things in labs, you see. Which labs? What are their criteria or cutoffs? How did they choose what to test for? All mysteries. The results for each product are five-star rankings, with no explanation of what the tests actually found. It’s like Yelp reviews, minus the reviews.

The organization did find numbers when it was time to summarize the dangers to news outlets. “[R]esearchers found 65% of products tested positive for arsenic, 36% for lead, 58% for cadmium and 10% for acrylamide,” USA Today reported, without any reference to whether they found these contaminants at dangerous levels or not. Lead has no safe level, but that’s not the case for the other chemicals mentioned. Pro tip for the Clean Label Project: if you’re reporting results on toxic substances without any mention of dose, you don’t know what the hell you’re doing.

Advertisement

So why does the Clean Label Project exist? From here it looks like they’re trying to ape the Environmental Working Group’s strategy of identifying possibly real concerns and then blowing them way out of proportion for clicks. (Remember, the EWG is behind questionable reports on sunscreen, vegetables, and tap water.) And just like the EWG, the Clean Label Project has a massive conflict of interest: they put a “buy now” button on each product in their results database, even the product that tops their “worst 5” list.

Oh, and it looks like they plan to issue—probably sell—a seal of approval to companies that score well.

Advertisement

The take-away: If there is anything dangerous in baby food, the Clean Label Project is not the place to find out.